> RIP "invisible hand" efficient market hypothesis. Smith didn’t claim that an “invisible” hand was a sole or even predominant mechanism, just that it could ap

> RIP "invisible hand" efficient market hypothesis. Smith didn’t claim that an “invisible” hand was a sole or even predominant mechanism, just that it could apply to specialization. In fact at a microeconomic level Coase’ “Nature of the firm” says the opposite is true, and he’s as mainstream as you can get. In general (this is not a comment about you, schiffern) most people who exalt Adam Smith have never read his book and would be shocked that he was such an enthusiast for welfare, regulation, and government intervention and support.